Saturday, June 20, 2020

A few more tributes to Steve Hays

I recently saw some more tributes to Steve Hays that I thought would be worth linking to. However some are on Facebook so they might not be accessible to everyone. Please feel free to post more in the comments if there are others worth reading.

24 comments:

  1. Thanks, Hawk. May I add another to the mix for anyone who has not seen this? David Wood and Sam Shamoun give a lovely little tribute to Steve in this video:

    https://youtu.be/OcYArlalrUw

    Around the 1:31 mark at the start of the video. I know they both highly respected Steve, in Particular Sam.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks, Danny. I haven't seen this. I'll add this one.

      Delete
  2. https://www.biblicallanguages.net/2020/06/06/in-memoriam-steve-hays-1959-2020

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks, CD. I've already included Phillip Marshall's tribute above.

      Delete
  3. I’ve been searching for more of these. Thanks, Hawk!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks, Lucas! I've just added yours and Tim B.'s tribute too.

      Delete
  4. I wrote my own:

    http://spirited-tech.com/Council/index.php/2020/06/08/dawn-and-dusk-a-tribute-to-steve-hays/

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks, TheSire! I just added yours.

      Delete
  5. https://greenbaggins.wordpress.com/2020/06/22/remembering-steve-hays/

    ReplyDelete
  6. Thank you, Hawk, for compiling this list. I didn't know Steve, but I have been reading his articles on this site for some time. I believe Steve was a defender of the faith, and I appreciate his devotion to defending his beliefs.

    As a side note, I saw a recent article by Randal Rauser on his blog re. Steve. A blogger using the id, RWH, interacted with Randal. I thought RWH might be you. Anyhow, I didn't think much of Randal referring to Steve the way he did. It is really something coming from him. He has energetically lampooned conservative evangelicals for years. He has defended his actions by citing the example of Jesus denouncing some as "hypocrites, whitewashed tombs, snakes, & a brood of vipers". However, after Steve challenged Randal's theological views, Randal charged Steve with being a "sad, bitter man". That is really alarming.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks, John! I appreciate the kind words.

      Yeah, you're right, I'm RWH on Rauser's post about Steve. I used to post as rockingwithhawking which is where "Hawk" comes from.

      Several Tbloggers have been aware of Rauser's comments about Steve since he posted his video. We haven't said anything about Rauser's comments in a Tblog post because we didn't think it merited further attention. I've been content to leave comments in response. I suppose we could put up a post in the future if it becomes useful to do so.

      Also, I left the following comment on Rauser's YouTube video, which I'll repost here:

      Randal Rauser alleges that Steve Hays tried to get Randal Rauser fired from Taylor Seminary. Generally speaking, people shouldn't accept this kind of allegation without hard evidence. However Randal Rauser gives no hard evidence that Steve Hays tried to get him fired. It's just what Randal Rauser has said. People who believe Randal Rauser are accepting his word on this. Yet a person's word may or may not be reliable. Randal Rauser should provide hard evidence that Steve Hays tried to get him fired (e.g. an email from Steve Hays to Taylor Seminary with Steve Hays saying Rauser should be fired).

      And it's interesting Randal Rauser never made this allegation public (as far as I'm aware) when Steve Hays was alive so that Steve Hays himself could have confirmed or denied this allegation.

      Delete
    2. How timely/funny, Hawk. I thought you 'sounded' like another poster who has not posted here for a while, and I was going to ask you but your blogger profile has no e-mail address, and only a day later John pops up and teases out of you the fact that you're the old rockingwithhawking! I see it now! I used to enjoy your posts.

      Do you remember writing an article in which you distinguish conception from fertilisation? I believe Steve linked to the article. I'd appreciate it if you could send me that article if you still have it and can track it down. Thanks, my friend.

      Jeff Lowder posted underneath Rauser's nauseating, self-important, self-absorbed post (Rauser cannot help making it all about him - a truly odious individual):

      'I always said that I considered Steve to be intelligent. Steve, on the other hand, routinely called me a "village atheist," a slur based on the concept of "village idiot...."'

      Someone can correct me if they believe/know I'm wrong, but I believe Steve used 'village atheist' to mean *common or garden atheist*, your run-of-the-mill, unthinking type who parrots long refuted arguments and assertions. Yes, these atheists are certainly very dense when it comes to the debate, but I believe Steve's usage was based on this contemporary understanding.

      Steve did not use this as an out-and-out 'slur'. I suggest Lowder is being too sensitive, and is perhaps committing the Etymological Fallacy.


      '...If I remember correctly, another time he criticized me as a "slow" thinker or something similar. He made disagreements personal.'

      No, that's a valid ad hominem ceiticism. Lowder's too sensitive.

      'I stand by what I wrote. He could be quite rude to people he disagreed with.'

      Bless. Lowder cannot distinguish ad hominem criticisms from baseless insults or 'slurs'. He takes it personally. That does not mean it is personal.

      Delete
    3. Thanks, Danny! Much appreciated.

      Yeah, I mentioned the same thing to Jeff Lowder over on Randal Rauser's post (linked above). That I think Lowder is overly sensitive. He has a thin skin.

      Also, I pointed out to Lowder that sometimes ad hominem and tu quoques can be licit in polemics (e.g. Ed Feser's post).

      And Lowder seems to care more about "playing nice" than anything else. Yet that's at odds with the atheistic/naturalistic worldview he advocates. He's like the German philosopher who wants to have a polite discussion advocating the merits of cannibalism, but he's taken aback if someone calls the German philosopher repulsive for advocating the merits of cannibalism.

      I think this is the article you might be refering to?

      Delete
    4. 1. Agreed re. Lowder. It's pathetic.

      I read Feser's article at the time it was written. It is hard to believe that was seven years ago. Feser made some very good points in that article.

      2. Yes, that's the article! Thank you. Excellent article. Bookmarked!

      Delete
    5. Cool, thanks, Danny! By the way, I should say the article was written a few years ago when I had less knowledge, but I think it should generally still be accurate.

      Delete
  7. Danny,

    Thanks for sharing that post. I wasn't 100% sure that Hawk was "RWH", but I had a hunch that he was. Hawk writes very well (imo), and I've read enough of his work here that his style of writing looked familiar to me. This site really has been a source of some excellent content.

    I'll tell you something about Randal Rauser. I've known about him for years. I knew about him before I first visited Triablogue. I've read enough of Steve's articles now that I believe Steve had Randal's viewpoints pegged. I think Randal was miffed that Steve took the time and effort to meticulously dissect and eviscerate some of Randal's progressive viewpoints. And for the record, I would be willing to wager that Randal's true theological and political convictions are even more progressive than he lets on. I think Randal's viewpoints are dangerous to embrace, and I applaud Steve for calling him out. I didn't know Steve, but I do miss his articles. I was impressed with his work the first time I read one of his articles here.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks so much, John! I don't know if me right so good, but I appreciate the kind words.

      Good point about Rauser being even more theologically and socially progressive than he lets on. I agree too. And I too miss Steve's work. Including him eviscerating Rauser as you said. I guess that means the job of eviscerating Rauser is left for you and I and others to do. ;)

      Delete
    2. Thanks, John. I agree regarding Hawk, and the rest of of our esteemed hosts. Steve was certainly discriminating when he chose who he wanted to write for Triablogue. But then what else would one expect.

      On Rauser, personally I've always found him to be self-important and sly. Steve absolutely had him sussed, and Rauser hated it. Steve picked apart Rauser's reasoning so often that Rauser must have dreaded logging in in the mornings!

      Delete
  8. Thanks for the reply, Danny. We agree that this site is rich in content and in talented writers.

    As an FYI, this smarmy, condescending comment by Rauser today on his twitter feed is yet another example of why I detest his tactics:

    https://twitter.com/RandalRauser/status/1278105018260795392

    "Anyone who approves of Trump's job at this point in his presidency is either ignorant, irrational, and/or immoral."

    So, if you don't share Randal's view re. his disapproval of POTUS, you are either "ignorant, irrational, and/or immoral"...

    I am convinced that Rauser's true political leanings are more "progressive" than he lets on. He has been consistent for years re. his attacks upon conservatism. I believe I understand why Steve dedicated time and effort to challenge's Rauser's progressive viewpoints. And, as Steve once wrote, if you throw a rock into a bush and the coyote hiding there lets out a yelp, it gave itself away.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks, John. Yeah, you're right, Randal Rauser is definitely progressive in his theology and politics. It's no secret; he doesn't hide this. In fact, he explicitly says so on his website. He is a self-described progressive Christian.

      Delete
  9. Thanks for the reply, Hawk.

    Sure, Randal openly claims to be progressive. However, I have read enough of his articles and tweets that I believe his true political leanings to be farther left than he openly declares. To wit, if he were a dyed-in-the-wool Marxist, I don't think he would openly declare it (for a variety of reasons). Now, I'm not asserting he is that, but I am convinced that his political leanings are considerably to the left. He has made many alarming declarations over the years.

    https://randalrauser.com/2016/04/should-a-christian-support-a-pro-choice-candidate-should-a-christian-support-a-pro-torture-candidate/

    "(Trump is different: I believe he has no redeeming qualities and that he is very possibly a clinical psychopath. He certainly is a protean fascist and no Christian should vote for him.)" - Rauser

    This is perhaps the most uncharitable characterization I have ever heard re. a human being. Further, Rauser knows darn well the eventuality if Christians abandon the GOP candidate en masse (i.e. Trump in this case) in elections in our two-party system. I think that is precisely what he wants to happen.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks, John. That's all very interesting, to say the least. I didn't know about that. As if being on the left wasn't already quite extreme, lol. Thanks for pointing this out.

      Delete